Adm. Matter No. MTJ-01-1383. March 5, 2003. PERLITA AVANCENA, complainant, vs. JUDGE RICARDO P. LIWANAG, Municipal Trial Court, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Perlita Avancena, the accused in two BP 22 cases before respondent Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag, alleged that prior to the scheduled promulgation, the judge summoned her to his chamber. He informed her she would be convicted unless she paid him One Million Pesos, assuring her he would handle the prosecutor and private complainant. When she refused, citing her actual debt was only P140,000, the demand was later reduced to P500,000 through a court personnel, with a promise to archive the cases. Further, the judge’s close friend and the court interpreter relayed messages, and the judge later threatened that if she did not pay P500,000, he would proceed with promulgation and would not allow a motion for bail unless she paid a P400,000 fine.
Respondent judge denied all allegations, characterizing them as fabrications. He argued the motion to reopen was dilatory, that demanding such sums through court personnel would be irresponsible, and that the legal process described by complainant was incorrect, as an accused retains freedom until a decision becomes final. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., who conducted hearings.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag is administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, stemming from allegations of extortion.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal. The investigating judge found complainant’s testimony clear, convincing, and consistent, and her demeanor indicated she was not fabricating her story. Her account was corroborated by her counsel, Atty. Salvador Quimpo, who testified the judge showed them a draft conviction decision and suggested to “settle” the case, and by NBI Agent Joselito Guillen regarding the entrapment operation. The Supreme Court affirmed these factual findings, giving them great weight as the investigating judge had the direct opportunity to observe witness credibility.
The Court held that the judge’s actions constituted a blatant betrayal of public trust and a severe violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Demanding money in exchange for a favorable judicial disposition is the epitome of graft and corruption, which erodes public confidence in the judiciary. Such conduct is gross misconduct, even absent proof of actual payment, as the attempt itself is reprehensible. A judge’s office demands the highest standards of integrity and moral righteousness. By engaging in extortion, respondent judge rendered himself unfit to remain in the judiciary. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch.